Category Archives: Party Conventions

Now that the 2008 Presidential Election is over, it is time for us Republicans to look at who is going to unseat President Obama in 2012 (actually, I think this is very unlikely barring a massive meltdown by the new President).Republicans have been frantically looking as to who will be our new “savior” and put the Republicans back on the map and give the country some sort of checks and balances since everything is run by the Democrats now (tear).I have no first hand knowledge of who the Republicans will pick, but here are some candidates that I think will come to mind (whether I agree with them or not).

The first candidate that I know for a fact has been tossed around in the mix is the one and only, Sarah Palin.In my opinion, this would be one of the worst choices of all time to run for President.She clearly already showed that she was probably the worst choice as a choice for Vice President.She actually, to me, makes George W. Bush seem like he’s on a level of Steven Hawking.To her credit, she does have an energetic personality and hypes up some people like others cannot.She also has a pretty solid base that could possibly give her a push in the primaries to be picked (not me).

Here is a video of the discussion of Sarah Palin throwing in her hat for 2012:

The second candidate that I also see as a long shot is Jeb Bush.Yes, we could have another Bush in office!He, as Palin, seems to have a base in the right that is very loyal to him and very excited about him.Here is an older article about the possibility of Jeb running in either 2012 or 2016.To be honest, I do not know much about the man and how he did as Governor of Florida, but I do not see him winning a Presidential election because of his last name alone.He could be the second coming of Christ and would not stand a shot because of what W has done.

A third, more of a sleeper type candidate, would be the current Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist.Crist is another guy I do not know a ton about but have heard enough about him to make some sort of impression.He seems more like a moderate-Conservative, like myself, and could be a good, new, fresh candidate for the Republicans to try to use and get some of the Independent and Democratic vote.He is not the stereotypical Republican, like Hannity or Limbaugh, but more of a “Maverick” in being more moderate.

Here is a video for Crist for 2012:

The most promising candidate for 2012 for the Republicans is Mitt Romney.People have said the fight for the 2008 Republican nomination is akin to the 1976 fight between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.The aging, older Gerald Ford fended off Ronald Reagan, who became the face of the Republicans during his presidencies, just like the aging, older John McCain fended off Mitt Romney.Ford went on to lose to Jimmy Carter just like John McCain went on to lose to Barack Obama.Mitt Romney is rich and can get a lot of money raised just as Obama did and is very intelligent.He might be guaranteed to be the nominee in 2012 if he so chooses.

Here is a final video made by somebody that includes many more people that he thinks can win the presidency for the Republicans in 2012:

I’m not sure any of these people, like I said earlier, could dethrone Obama unless he completely screws up or for some reason does not run for President in 2012 but I thought I’d just go over some prospective candidates.

The GOP has been pretty lousy this election cycle in checking records who said what. McCain, who’s been trying to run away from Bush’s presidency, sounds pretty similar to him as of 8 years ago. This clip form the Daily show showcases that pretty well.

I know it may be a little too early to declare “Mission: Accomplished” after just the first day of the Democratic National Convention awards. After all, there are still three more days in which someone may say or do something that will undo the progress that was done today toward party unity in the Democratic party. First, early in the morning, Hillary Clinton addressed the New York delegation and took the opportunity to give a rebuttal to an ad put out by the McCain campaign that makes heavy use of Hillary’s words against Barack Obama in the primaries and actively exploits the fissures in the party by riling up disgruntled Hillary supporters, and slams Obama for not picking Hillary as his running mate:
To which Hillary plainly responded:
Then there was that obviously scripted but nice reference to Hillary’s campaign and allusion to her concession speech by Michelle Obama that garnered the applause of the delegates in the audience. Overall, I think by the end of the first night of the Convention, the Democrats are well on their way to (finally!) smoothing things over and leaving the bitterness and fractures of the primaries behind.

As was discussed in class a few days ago, the rift in the Democratic party caused by the hard fought primary election hasn’t totally gone away—and in fact, it will be in full display for the whole country to see during the Convention next week. I, for one, was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter and continue to be. Even though I do support Barack Obama, and think it’s time for a Democratic president, I still align myself with those who support her, and I don’t think we could ever support Obama the same way we did Hillary.
One of the main reasons the rift hasn’t smoothed much since June, despite Hillary and Barack’s best efforts is that Obama supporters keep downplaying Hillary’s accomplishments during the primary—I still cannot believe it took until last week to announce that her name would be placed into nomination. I know many of you believe that Obama had won the nomination well before he actually did, but to those of us who poured our time and resources into her campaign, we know that the race was much, much closer than many Obama supporters would like to admit: out of the more than 3,000 pledged delegates, they are only separated by 123 pledged delegates.
The different coalitions that each candidate put together was extraordinary. Tony frequently mentions the importance of the youth vote—the vote that put Obama over the top—and in passing the “older women” that Hillary got. While it is true that Hillary constantly performed well with women voters over 50, it’s also true that Hillary broke barriers with other minority groups as well. She constantly outperformed Obama with Latino voters (even Latino youth, as in the California and Texas primaries), Catholic voters, blue collar workers among others: the fact remains that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each built a strong coalition of diverse electorate that split the Democratic party almost neatly in half.
As a person within Hillaryland (as we call it), I pretty much knew what a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll backs up. There are factions within the faction. Not all disaffected Hillary supporters are united, for or against Obama. There are three basic factions: 1) is the faction that has followed Sen. Clinton’s lead, and have thrown their full support behind Barack Obama, this is the largest faction; 2) is the faction that despite Sen. Clinton’s endorsement of Obama, have not yet decided to support him; and 3) the faction that is so disaffected with the party leadership, they pledge to NOT vote for Obama and/or to vote for John McCain; this is the smallest faction, although this certainly won’t help.
Since bowing out of the race in June, I think Sen. Clinton has made it more than obvious that she strongly backs Sen. Obama, no matter what some of her most fervent supporters say. Someone in class said that actions spoke louder than words, and I would just like to point out that in the past weeks, she has been campaigning for him in three key battleground states, states that she won: Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico. I don’t know where this perception that Sen. Clinton isn’t being as helpful as she could is rooted but I don’t think it’s true. Even today, when she was asked about whether her support for Sen. Obama had been sufficient, Sen. Clinton pointed out the obvious:

“Well, I think, again, that’s perhaps a misperception about both what I’ve done, and the fact that I’ve probably done more for Sen. Obama than anybody in my position has ever done by this time. And maybe it’s because I know what other people have done and the fact that very often these contests went all the way to conventions, they were contested, they were fights, and most people never got around to endorsing the winning candidate until the convention; sometimes even later. So I think it’s a fair assessment that I’ve done more than anybody has done in my position, and I intend to keep doing everything that I can.”

Sen. Clinton obviously made a not-so-subtle dig at perennial rivals and huge Obama supporters Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, whose rivalry split the 1980 convention, despite Kennedy substantially trailing (i.e a lot more than 123) Carter in delegates. At the convention, during their “unity” moment, Carter had to practically chase after Kennedy onstage for a handshake—Carter went on to lose his re-election campaign. But I digress.
As John Heileman from New York Magazinesays, even with Bill and Hillary headlining half of the convention (on Tuesday and Wednesday), nobody should worry because Obama sure-to-be mega-wattage speech in Invesco Field on Thursday is sure to make almost everybody forget anything Bill or Hillary can say. And so, with the convention officially kicking off next week, I plan to join fellow Hillary supporters in honoring her accomplishments, and can only hope that Obama supporters can finally understand.

The concept of “recreating 68” seems at once a misunderstanding of what really happened at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968, and at the same time, an astute understanding of the reasons those events occurred.

In the seemingly bipolar world of the two-party United States of America, a true repeat of such rioting and anarchy in Denver, in 2008, would almost certainly revive the Republican backlash that took hold in 1968 and persisted, arguably, until George W. Bush’s ratings plummeted after the WMD were not found in Iraq and his excessive cronyism was exposed beyond doubt by the federal government’s inability to make any reasonable response to the hurricanes that battered Louisiana and Texas in 2004.

This loss of confidence – both at home and abroad – coupled with the subsequent economic dive has provided even the moderate McCain a steep uphill climb toward the presidency.Thus, with the independent vote of crucial importance to both parties, radicalism on either side only plays to the opponent’s hand.

In an interview with Colorado Public Radio’s “Colorado Matters”, Mark Cohen, one of the organizers of “Recreate 68”, a coalition of over one hundred different organization and protest groups, seems to get this, claiming that there is no “direct action” to be taken in Denver, because the convention is only a “show”, and therefore, only symbolic action is on the agenda.

But the name alone is subject to interpretation, subject to misunderstanding.Because it is not qualified to exclude the kind of violent confrontation experienced in Chicago, it may be a significant source of concern on the part of the Denver’s city government, as well as encourage some, who like so many at the political rallies in Berkeley, as characterized by Tom Wolfe in the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, are only looking for kicks, or are out to disrupt for non-political reasons. These two results could make “Recreate 68” a self fulfilling prophesy that its founders clearly did not intend. The Blog, Liberal Jackass Quotes, may not be off base to declare that “…If Cohen has any inclinations to “Re-Create 68” he is full of crap about any intention of having “innocent protesters.”

Larry Hales, representing Troops Out Now, shows a good understanding of why anyone might want to turn back the clock “…neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are fulfilling the needs of the American people.”When the interviewer asks why not show up in Minneapolis instead, as the Democrat platform seems closer to fulfilling American his perception of needs than the Republican, he responds that the Republican convention is important too.The underlying thrust of this coalition seems to be to communicate to the Democrats that they have a large, growing constituency which is not satisfied with them either.

In spite of the fact that these groups emphasize peaceful protest in both their words and on their web sites, they could be playing with fire.No organization has the ability to manage large numbers of people, in an uncertain environment, when they are actively demonstrating dissatisfaction with government.It is clear that the name they chose has increased mobilization on the part of the state, and may have incited counter movements to act.It is also clear that their real motives stand to lose substantial ground if things go wrong in Denver next week, not to mention the personal injury and physical damage that could result.This coalition’s choice of name has them playing with fire, let’s hope we don’t all get burnt.